Calls grow for EU to ban Hezbollah

A Lebanese protestor waves the Hezbollah flag and the Palestinian flag during a protest. Picture: Getty

The White House is piling pressure on the EU to ban Hezbollah after Bulgarian authorities linked it to a bomb blast in Burgas which killed six people last year. The intended target was a group of Israeli tourists, of which five died in the attack along with their Bulgarian bus driver. An extensive investigation lasting more than six months identified the Lebanese terrorist group as the culprits. ‘Europe can no longer ignore the threat that this group poses to the Continent and to the world,’ wrote President Obama’s National Security Adviser, Thomas Donilon, in the New York Times. He continued:

‘The Bulgarian investigation has once again proved to the world what Hezbollah has tried for years to hide: that it remains engaged in international terrorist attacks against civilians.

[…]

‘European governments must respond swiftly. They must disrupt [Hezbollah’s] operational networks, stop flows of financial assistance to the group, crack down on Hezbollah-linked criminal enterprises and condemn the organization’s leaders for their continued pursuit of terrorism.’

Donilon echoes the sentiments of John Brennan who told an audience in Ireland last November that the ongoing refusal to ban Hezbollah in Europe makes ‘it harder to defend our countries and protect our citizens’.

The EU has long resisted such calls, arguing that Hezbollah consists of two entirely separate and distinct wings – where one is ‘political’ and another which is ‘military.’ This sophistry was debunked in a recent report by the Henry Jackson Society which explains the group’s pernicious global influence, its attacks on Western interests, and centralised structure.

It is telling that while European governments impute a ‘political’ and ‘military’ distinction into Hezbollah’s structure, the group recognises no such distinction itself. Yet Hezbollah is more than happy to welcome the EU’s entirely artificial distinction. Its Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah, has warned that a European ban would ‘destroy’ the group because ‘the sources of our funding will dry up and the sources of moral, political and material support will be destroyed’.

Only the Netherlands has argued against the present consensus in Europe. With direct evidence of Hezbollah now claiming civilian lives in an EU member state, calls to ban the group must surely prove unstoppable.

It only in the US, Israel and its shrills in Europe who regard them as a terrorist group. This does not mean other countries are supportive of them ,but realise their significance in Lebanese politics. They stil have strong support among the shia of South Lebanon and parts of Beiruit.

Damocles

Three cheers for Hezbollah !

Let’s not forget they are fighting to protect their brothers and sisters in Lebanon from Israeli fascism – let’s face it you can hardly reason with the Israeli nuts can you ?

What about proscribing Israel ?

After all, look at all the Palestinian and Lebanese civilians they have murdered with their extreme militaristic jingoism ?
Plus they have nuclear weapons and refuse to let the Nuclear Weapons Inspectorate anywhere near them – they simply refuse to co-operate with anything, and they are forever carrying out extra-judicial assassinations

Why not proscribe them ?

why do you expect groups like Hezbollah to play by the Queensbury Rules when dealing with these nutters ?

It’s actually a religion, one that encourages spirituality and human decency if you bother looking into it.

chan chan

Islam is a totalitarian military/political ideology with a cloak of religious components. Religion is the smallest part of Islam. 60% of Islamic doctrine is about politics – how to view, treat and wage war against non-Muslims. I’m not interested in the religious parts, as they’re nothing to do with me, as Islamic doctrine states. You’re welcome to them. But the rest of us are interested in the 60% of Islam that says we should be subjugated, beaten, raped, robbed, mocked, tortured or killed. But you’ve already read Ishaq’s Sira, Sahih Bukhari/Sahih Muslim, the Koran, Umdat al Salik, and Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir, haven’t you? Of course you have…

http://www.facebook.com/roger.hudson.946 Roger Hudson

Hezbollah is a single terrorist entity and should be shunned, if not destroyed. Any Europeans who do not see this are complicit in acts of terror.
Israeli prime minister Begin and Shamir never came to Britain because we rightly saw them as terrorists ( Irgun and Lehi). Only strong action will stop us all getting sucked down into the mess they represent.

The Laughing Cavalier

Should we assume that the two entirely separate and distinct wings, one political the other military are entirely separate in the same way that Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA were/are?

Hexhamgeezer

‘the present consensus in Europe’

A strange consensus that excludes every decent, intelligent, compassionate European.

telemachus

As long as Israel thwarts the 2 State solution Hezbollah will thrive and will have the support of reasonable people thru Europe

Colonel Mustard

Terrorism should never have the support of “reasonable” people. It is the very antithesis of reason, but too often it is being conflated as ‘insurgency’ which is a very different thing. Making an insurgent war against the authority of an illegal or alien occupier might have legitimacy provided the rules of warfare are adhered to. But indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians cannot be justified, whether they are perpetrated in the name of an insurgency or by legitimate armed forces.

You should be more circumspect in your comments, which are beginning to reveal an alarming extremism.

telemachus

It is merely an observation that if you back a people against the wall so they have no conventional place to go they will do what they can
If you cage and taunt my benign friendly Labrador he will eventually bite you

mightymark

But Hezbollah is an ideologically inspired Islamist group. Its purpose is not a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians but the destruction of the former The idea that all would be well with Hezbollah if only some kind of I/P peace deal was agreed is too absurd to be worth entertaining.. Were such a deal to occur Hezbollah would be busy undermining it.

CharlietheChump

Not if he’s properly trained

telemachus

But the Palestinians have never had the opportunity to be trained

Tom M

It might be of some small interest to you that the UN defined the Israeli borders in 1948 and created the two state solution. The arabs didn’t agree and started a war. They started another one in 1967 “to push Israel into the sea” ( quote president Nasser). They started another one in 1973. In 1978 Egyptian president Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel. He was assassinated for his trouble.

Now the arabs want a return to the 1967 borders as a condition for a two state solution and you believe them?

Damocles

The UN made a ‘proposal’ in 1947 but why should the Arabs have agreed ?

Why should they have agreed to give up some 52% of their homeland because the West decided to give it to the (almost exclusively immigrant) Jews ?

Would you be keen to cede over half of England to violent foreigners because the UN suggested that that ‘might’ keep them happy ?

Come into the real world please

Colonel Mustard

“Would you be keen to cede over half of England to violent foreigners because the UN suggested that that ‘might’ keep them happy ?”

It didn’t happen quite like that. And thanks to New Labour England is no stranger to violent foreigners. Maybe you have been asleep for 20 years?

Damocles

Well Colonel, presumably if the UN proposes that we should give 52% of England over to them (allowing them to treat us as second class citizens in our own land) you will be voting in favour ?

I wish there was no aggro in that region but to blame the Palestinians (and groups like Hezbollah) is ridiculous

Zionism created, stokes up, and perpetuates that conflict.

Groups like Hezbollah are a product of zionist terrorism.

I don’t disagree that there are many problems here in the UK, contrary to the nonsense we are fed by the mainstream news media.

A very good book on the subject that I would recommend is ‘Cultures and Crimes’ from CIVITAS, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society.

It is a study of changes in patterns of crime and the way they have been dealt with, plus their relative success (or failures) in 4 countries.

The UK, Germany, France, and the USA.

It is a real eye opener (concerning the UK)

Tom M

“…….. presumably if the UN proposes that we should give 52% of
England over to them (allowing them to treat us as second class citizens
in our own land) you will be voting in favour”
I just wish you would get your facts in a row.
The reason the Palestine dispute went to the UN was both sides had a claim on the territory. Boths jews and arabs have lived in that space since time began. The only wat possible was to seek arbitration. This was accepted by the jews but not by the arabs. The arabs always have wanted it all.
Your argument drawing

Damocles

I am afraid that it is you who have your facts wrong

If we look at Palestine around the time that the political movement called zionism was created by Theodor Herzl (1897) the population was approximately 3-4% Jewish, and there was no history of problems between them and the indigenous Arabs going back for hundreds of years
that all changed with the arrival of the zionists with their exclusive claim to the land (all based on a story in the bible)

If you read ‘The Jewish Sate’ by Herzl you will see that the zionists never ever intended to simply live in that part of the world with the indigenous people, they always wanted the Arabs out

that is why there is an enduring conflict

The Arabs in Palestine fought with the British against the Ottoman Turks in the First World War (Lawrence of Arabia etc., which you seem to have conveniently forgotten) and the British promised them ‘self-determination’ for doing so
simultaneously the British promised a homeland for the Jews in Palestine (originally the zionists looked at establishing a homeland in one of 3 locations (a) Uganda, (b) Argentina, (c) Palestine)
They decided that it ‘must’ be Palestine because of the biblical links to the place

The British also effectively emasculated the Arab militias during the Arab Uprising from 1936-39, so that the Arabs were a bit of a spent force by the time the fighting started in 1948.

The UN Partition Plan was a ‘proposal’ to attempt to halt the growing conflict and the Arabs (understandably) refused to accept the plan to give away some 52% of their homeland to the zionist colonisers.
By the time that the UN made their proposal the British had handed everything over to the UN to solve, the last proposal the British made on the subject was made by The Peel Commission in 1937.

The overwhelming majority of the Jews who ‘unilaterally’ declared the state of Israel in May 1948 were not indigenous to that part of the world.

Just for example, if we look at the 13 (different) Prime Ministers of Israel since the inception of the state in 1948, only 5 were born locally – of those 5 none of their parents were

How do you explain that if they have lived there ‘from time immemorial’ (to quote the entirely discredited Joan Peters book title on the conflict) ?

you need to do some reading judging by your response (above)

Tom M

I could trade dates with you all day however, 29th November 1947 UN two state partition plan was presented to the world leaders as being the considered best plan in a very difficult situation. The world leaders voted on it. The consensus of world opinion was in favour of a two state solution.
The telling point in this is that the state of Israel was recognised as such by every country in the world except the arabs. That was the majority world opinion.

The arabs, now very much in the minority, rejected it and started various wars to emphasise their disagreement.

The two state partition plan is what the arabs now tell an incredulous world they want after spending the intervening 60 years or so trying to “push Israel into the sea”. And they expect to be taken seriously.

It matters not one jot beyond interesting history what happened before this point (you missed out Madacascar in the proposed list of possible locations). 1947 was the defining moment when this could have been sorted out.
It doesn’t matter how many prime ministers were born there after this point. From 1947 on Israel was a sovereign country recognised as such by everybody, except the arabs of course. They could invite who they wanted into their country and choose who they wanted for their leaders.

Damocles

The simple fact is that what you are saying is wrong so (as usual with zionists) you attempt to confuse the issue.

Tell me about the Madagascar plan, I’ve never heard of it.
I think you made it up, in fact I am sure you have made it up.

All you have done is dodge the facts I have quoted and replied with a load of very vague waffle.

Why should the Palestinian Arabs (not ‘the Arabs’ as you quote) accept other people deciding to give away their birthright to a bunch of foreigners ?

The whole affair was handed to the UN to attempt to solve because the British had had enough, and the UN came up with a ‘Partition Plan’, nothing more.

In 1948 after decades of attempts to secure land in historic Palestine by the JNF (established with the help of Britain at the beginning of the 1920′s to buy land in Palestine) Jewish interests owned some 6.7% of the land in Palestine, so why should the Palestinians who still made up a majority of the population (around 63%) accept a minority share in their own homeland ?

Palestine was colonised, there is no other appropriate description, and apartheid Israel is far worse than apartheid South Africa was (according to people who fought South African apartheid like Desmond Tutu and Ronnie Kasrills)

Facts and figures please rather than vague waffle.

Tom M

“…Tell me about the Madagascar plan, I’ve never heard of it.”
Look it up. I think you will find some reference to it in wiki. QED.

Damocles

Is that where you get all your information from ?

To be honest it is hard to take someone seriously who’s knowledge is limited to the Wikipedia site.
Wikipedia is not impartial by the way, especially not on a subject like this – it is Jewish run and most of the contributors are also Jewish – have you ever tried to amend or question any of the many mistakes on that site ?
It is almost impossible

I also do apologise if my points embarrassed you,
I wasn’t trying to put you on the spot or anything like that.
It is clear that you don’t really know very much about the subject and my points obviously put you on the back foot a bit,
but it wasn’t intentional
(well you did comment after all)

I mean for anyone to make the ridiculous assertion that the origins of the conflict are unimportant sort of says it all really doesn’t it ?

Oh well, keep reading
(and stay off the wiki site !)

Damocles

your attempt to have me ‘shut down’ is not surprising
it is the standard, stock tactic of zionists

ie. to try to have banned anything they don’t agree with
which is why I firmly believe that zionism represents the biggest threat to freedom of speech and democracy in the Western world

it is called ‘creeping fascism’
and it is thriving among political circles on both the (so called) Left and the Right

zionism = creeping fascism

Damocles

The Madagascar Plan was nothing whatsoever to do with the zionist movement and it’s desire to create a homeland for the Jews.

The Madagascar Plan was an idea floated by the nazis in 1940 , and an idea that never got past the ‘idea’ stage.

Damocles

Watch RT (Channel 85 on Freeview)
You might learn something

You certainly won’t learn much by watching the mainstream news (BBC, ITV etc.,)

valakos

they are there now and i am not looking at events which occured 100 years ago

Damocles

What is your point ?

If you look at the comment I was responding to the person concerned was giving a false history of how we arrived where we are now

that is why I made the points I did

now do you understand ?

Where we are now doesn’t exist in isolation, it is the result of a process whether you like it or not.
I realise that you people like to ‘control’ everything, including the discourse, the language used, etc., etc., but you are not controlling me

Israel is an artificial state founded on a fairy story
and that is what has caused the problem

wake up and smell the coffee !

Damocles

as for Hezbollah,

no we should not proscribe Hezbollah,
Hezbollah are in Lebanon, they are from Lebanon, and they were formed to protect the Lebanese people from the invading zionist fascists

The religious aspect has become more pronounced than I would wish (in some ways) but that is life I am afraid, people tend to turn to religion when they are in a very difficult situation

good luck to them

We in the UK should isolate Israel,
if the Israeli thugs want to intimidate the people of the Middle East, let them try doing it without the support of USA and much of the West

but I don’t think they would last very long would they ?

We should impose sanctions on Israel, that would focus their tiny minds somewhat

Tom M

The UN didn’t make a proposal in 1947 they had a vote. All UN affiliated countries in the world had a vote (UK abstained). This is what you do when you have a territorial dispute with your neighbour. You go to court for a decision as an alternative to continually fighting. Or alternatively you start a war and the winner takes what he wants. The reason the UN was created was to avoid this option. What you don’t do is continually start wars, loose, regroup then start another one.

telemachus

I hesitate to argue!

victor67

Playing fast an loose with history I think and Jewish extremists murdered Rabin for trying to make peace with the Palestinians.

alabenn

The EU is controlled by socialists whose current fetish is, “poor innocent Palestinians vs the murdering Israelis.
The poor innocents will have to do a lot worse than murder a few Israelis.
The US could wait till the next EU fad comes along then they will drop the Palestinians like they dropped the Israelis twenty years or so ago.

Colonel Mustard

It does seem that socialism has triumphed in the EU but the collective state has long been a tendency for Europeans and quite unsuited to the independently minded English. One might have expected the demise of the Soviet Union and Eastern European communist puppet states to have brought a refreshing kick back against the false promises of Western European socialists stealth engineering the communist manifesto but the opposite seems to have occurred.

Their lies, misrepresentations and hypocrisies know no bounds and have become ever more blatant. Cultural revolution masquerading as “progressive” – even Cameron is now singing the words to that old con trick.

CharlietheChump

While you are right about European socialism the English are still tainted by 60 years of nanny-knows-best “entitlements” without responsibility and in many cases without any contribution to state coffers at all.

David Lindsay

he EU is controlled by socialists

Laughable. Though understandably laughable, if you rely on the absurd British official media.

Anyway, thanks to the EU, were are being legislated for by, among other unsavoury people, those who continue to believe that the Provisional Army Council to be the sovereign body throughout Ireland.

When Turkey gets in, both her Islamists and the Kemalists will be legislating for us, and neither of those sits in coalition with, among other Christian, ethnic Armenians, as Hezbollah is doing right now.

This is all a very great deal more pressing than an essentially meaningless “ban” on Hezbollah.